A Qualitative Segmentation

The world’s first (and probably last) segmentation of qualitative researchers

It is easy to assume qualitative research is a fairly homogenous discipline … Groups or depths, followed by analysis and then a debrief. Those closer to the research practice know these surface similarities can obscure a broad range of philosophical differences in how researchers understand their role.

As well as an interesting line of inquiry in itself, exploring this diversity might help clients navigate their choice of research partner.                

So, when chairing the AQR Qualitative Conference last year and looking for a bit of light relief from all the doom-laded sessions (AI ‘threat’, polarised society etc) I thought an attitudinal segmentation of qual researchers seemed like a good idea. Here was chance for qual researchers to talk about themselves for once, compensation and reward for all that active listening!

Having promised the content in a moment of generosity, how to deliver on it?

The intention was never to create the sort of robust segmentation that clients need to guide use of marketing funds but simply to identify some broad attitudinal differentiators that could provoke conference discussion about what qual is all about. Even with this modest objective, the scale of the available budget remained a challenge. The budget was zero.

Luckily, I was able to turn to the Jigsaw Whycatcher Team to help design (and largely enact) an AI-driven, human-refined approach - combining AI wizardry with old school qual analysis of over 100 responses to an online questionnaire. So, what did we find?

The segments in snapshot

4 core attitudinal segments emerged:

• Traditionalists - believe qual requires trained practitioners employing proven methodologies underpinned by analytical rigour
• Innovators - believe qual needs to continually adapt and update to stay relevant
• Humanists - believe qual is about giving everyone in society a voice
• Pragmatists - believe qual is primarily a tool for helping clients make decisions, it is not an end in itself.

How did qualitative researchers at the conference react?

The segmentation did its job – it got the attendees talking, often in animated fashion - the subject was both satisfyingly cerebral and very personal. The four segments resonated. They could certainly see how other qual researchers might fit easily into these categories…

But when it came to personally identifying with a single segment, then some become a little uncomfortable. The process felt limiting and a bit reductive. Many made the (completely valid) case for belonging to a combination of two of the segments. This reaction was especially true of those who qualified into the ‘traditional’ or ‘pragmatic’ segments and they looked enviously upon the (relatively) glamorous sounding ‘innovators’ and ‘humanists’. Labels matter!

Others emphasised the ‘chameleon’ nature of the commercial researcher and the necessity to accommodate and respond to the needs of the client. But guess what segment tended to make this point? Yep, the pragmatists!

Some of these responses may be related to the ‘economical’ nature of this particular study but those of us who have (dared) to present a segmentation study to the relevant consumers will likely have encountered similar resistance. People don’t like to feel categorised and defined in this way. Whatever segment or segments we qual researchers may or may not belong to, we are certainly human.

What about clients?

We were very curious about how clients would respond to the segmentation. When we were asked to re-present the segmentation at the QRCA National Conference last month in Philadelphia we thought it would be a great opportunity to include reactions from some of our favourite clients.

We intend to share these in our webinar which is happening soon. However, as a spoiler, we were really surprised by just how engaged clients became in the discussion … and how strongly they felt about the pros and cons of working with the different. That is my version of clickbait – see you at the webinar?

Next steps? We’ll be in touch about the webinar soon. In the meantime, we are working on finding better segment names for traditionalists and pragmatist … so any ideas welcome!

A final, entirely gratuitous point - to my knowledge, no one has ever suggested a segmentation of quantitative researchers.

Peter Totman, Mar 25